How did the Ottomans treat non-Muslims? - Ottomans mistreated non-muslims by killing them. They raided the lands of where the non-muslim people lived. They didn’t approve of non-muslims whatsoever. They also made non-muslims pay taxes. They thought that Muslims themselves were much better than the non-muslims.
What were Suleyman's major accomplishments? - Suleyman brought the Ottoman Empire to its greatest size and most impressive achievements. He conquered parts of Southeastern Europe and won control of the entire eastern Mediterranean Sea. He took North Africa as far west as Tripoli. He also ruled his empire with a highly structured government that gave people the right to follow any religion they desired.He revised the laws of the empire and built fine buildings.
Despite their brilliant rule, what critical mistake did Suleiman and Shah Abbas make? - They made the critical mistake of killing off their most powerful and talented sons because they were afraid they would seize power from them. At the end, they had no choice but to give their power to someone who was not fully capable of managing the position and as a result the empire fell.
What evidence of cultural blending can you find in Akbar's rule? - During Akbar’s rule, because he allowed all people to follow whatever religion they wanted and didn’t really care about their culture but more on their ability, two new languages were produced, Hindi blended the Persian and local languages. Urdu grew of a mixture of Arabic, Persian, and Hindi and is the official language of Pakistan today.
How did Akbar's successors contribute to the end of the Mughal Empire?
Jahangir had conflicts with a religious group that contained his son, Shah Jahan did not allow religious tolerance like Akbar did and he required high taxes and made many people suffer. Aurangzeb put harsh new laws into place and persecuted Hindus by punishing them and destroying their temple which produced a lot of rebellions. He only taxed Hindus. As a result, the whole empire fell apart.
September 9th, 2011
What were the CAUSES of the Scientific Revolution? Which one do you think is MOST significant AND WHY?
The causes of the Scientific Revolution were of many things. The general cause was that many people were discovering new things that contradicted old theories. For example, the heliocentric universe was being discovered and many new inventions such as the thermometer were being discovered. I think the heliocentric universe was one of the most significant causes of the scientific revolution because it was one of the theories that proved the church wrong and at that time, the church was the central part of the country that held the most power and proving them wrong was risky and perilous.
Why might those in positions of authority at the time (Church and government) tend to reject new ideas?
Church leaders firmly made the people believe that the Earth was the center of everything and they thought they had all the knowledge of most things in the world. The government mostly consisted of religious leaders and so the same thing applied to them. WHen new ideas were suggested, the church didn’t want to be proven wrong because they wanted the people to believe everything that the church said so the people would worship the church more than anything else.
Do you agree with Galileo's actions during his trial? Explain.
I agree with Galileo’s actions during his trial. Although standing up for his theory and for what he believed in seemed like the right and brave thing to do, I agree with his solemn pledge. This wasn’t really about courage and standing up for one’s beliefs and discoveries but more over being smart about one’s actions. He probably knew that at this time, no matter what he did that the church would always have the force to overpower him. So I agree that he made a wise choice in agreeing with the church and realizing his deficient power against the church.
Make a list of the major figures of this revolution in thinking and what they did.
Copernicus was the first one who introduced the heliocentric theory and Kepler was the scientist that mathematically proved Copernicus’ theories to be true. Galileo built on new theories about astronomy and he strongly supported Copernicus’ theory that he even went through house arrest and death for it. Bacon came up with the scientific method in order for people to prove things with experiments and conclusions. Descartes used mathematics and logic to prove something true Newton discovered the basis of gravity. Janssen invented eye glasses, Leeuwenhoek observed the first cells, Torricelli discovered and invented the barometer, Celsius and Fahrenheit came up with the measurements that followed after their names. Vesalius contributed to the knowledge of human anatomy. Jenner found a way to prevent smallpox, and Boyle founded chemistry.
Explain the significance of these terms:
Geocentric Theory- the theory that most renaissance believed in before Copernicus that the Earth was the center of the universe. This was what all people during the Renaissance strongly believed in before.
Heliocentric Theory- the theory proposed by Copernicus that the sun was the center of the universe. This theory proved the church wrong which was a very risky and difficult thing to do at that time.
Scientific Revolution- A new way of thinking about the natural world. This brought numerous new creations into the world of the Renaissance and many new discoveries for theories that weren’t ascertained before.
Scientific method- Five steps used in order to prove something is true by using an experiment and analyzing results. This method is still used in the modern day and is an essential way of proving your hypothesis.
September 4th, 2011
How did the Renaissance contribute to the opening of the mind in Europe? - The Renaissance was a time of rebirth, and the revival of art and learning.Before the Renaissance came along, Europe was greatly damaged by the Bubonic Plague and the population had greatly decreased. The Renaissance contributed to the opening minds of Europe due to its multitudes of new discoveries which were realizations of all the things they were missing out on. The Renaissance introduced new styles of art that many people first looked down on. For example, Michelangelo introduced a whole new concept of art to the people in Europe and he used the concept of nudity. This concept of art was greatly shunned by the people at first, however later on they realized that they should embrace the human body instead of look down on it. They were awaken by the forms of art they didn’t know about. The Renaissance also introduced new discoveries like Galileo’s discovery stating that we lived in a heliocentric universe instead of a geocentric universe. This contributed to the opening minds of Europe because they realized that they had been believing in the wrong theory for the whole time and that there were yet many things to discover. They were shaken by the fact that not all of their theories were accurate. In conclusion, art and new discoveries played big roles in the Renaissance to open the mind of Europe and show that discoveries were yet to be made in art and in other fields.
Edited by Peter Kim
Why does Europe gain dominance?
- I think Europe gains dominance mostly because first of all the Renaissance started in Europe. I also think Europe gains dominance because of its devout people in religion. First off, church leaders and general church itself holds dominant power in social statuses and so if someone were to prove their theories or what they say, they would have the power to shut them up. The church power is so strong that they can make people think what they want the people to think. So whatever people want to say that is against what the church people say is no good. Most religious power is held in Europe because it was strongly dominant in that area. Also, the Renaissance or the time period of new things started in Italy which is in Europe and many essential people came from Europe for example like Columbus who bumped into the land of America. Because religion, essential people, and a lot of power and goods came from different places in Europe, I think Europe gains dominance around the world.
heretical- describes a person who believes in something different than orthodox religion
faggot- a bundle of sticks tied together to represent disgrace in one’s wrongdoings
Eucharist- Christian celebration where wine (jesus’ blood) and bread (jesus’ body) is served
abstain- to restrain oneself from doing something
penance- a punishment where one has to announce their wrongdoings
beseeching- to urgently ask someone to to something
source- a person, place, or object in which information can be gathered
1. Hogsflesh is being punished because he practiced heresy and at that time the orthodox church was very powerful and devout. Therefore he had to announce to the people that what he did was wrong and also he had to carry around a bundle of sticks (faggot) to indicate his wrongdoings. The historian’s main point of the article is that Hogsflesh was punished at that time just for having a different belief and that he got punished in numerous ways in order to avoid a severe consequence which was getting burnt in fire. However they were just listing facts from their sources without having some opinion. 2. John Arnold defines the roles of a historian and not only recording the information in chronological order but they also have to fill in the missing information and also interpret what we can take out of such stories. That’s why they are often referred to as interpreters. I disagree with his assumptions because I really think that finding the facts are easy, however filling in the gaps is not. Facts are facts and that’s why they’re recorded however filling in the gaps may not always be the correct information. I think historians should have an opinion on the story rather than just say the facts. 3. It means that they’re being loyal to their sources and recording the information from their source as facts. They don’t make up any information on their own. This is important because historical references have to be true and not false because we want facts from the past to be accurate in order to learn what really happened in the past. 4. A single event can most definitely be interpreted in more than one way because it depends on the source of where the information is received. The information can be received from many different people and so the perspective on the same story would be all different therefore the story could change a little to favor one’s side. Anything could be interpreted in different ways. Even a simple accident such as a student not receiving such a good grade could have more than one perspective. 5. There was an incident where a woman was once very unreasonably malicious to me because of something her own child did. I really don’t think it’s possible to always be objective because in a story, there’s always one perspective of the side that treated with more contempt or unfairness. Therefore, sometimes a historian is bound to have an opinion about events. For example to every person that knew about that incident where the woman was being unfair to me, they felt pity for me because it was clear that I was more of the victim. 6. There are always sides to a certain event and so if a historian favors one side, the other side/sides may feel like the historian is being biased or unfair and that might even cause some sort of conflict. Subjective history can be beneficial though because we would be able to comprehend an event better by looking through the historian’s eyes (point of view) and with that we could get a deeper meaning out of the event. I remembered the event I stated earlier because it was just so unfair and degrading to me. The other person remembers that event because that person probably felt bad about what happened. This tells us that history is all about having more than one point of view on a single event. 7. Every historian is a storyteller because they list what happened in an event with an opinion (sometimes) in order to make the story appeal to more people. Historians should have limited versions of a story and not countlessly many because then the people who hear about the story would not know what to think about the story and would not have an opinion on an event that happened. We wouldn’t be able to trust them because having countlessly many versions of a story seems a little suspicious. 8. I always thought that history was completely accurate because it was published in textbooks and everything but now I know that history can sometimes be biased because the historians can have certain opinions or perspectives on a single event. I will approach history with a more open mind and be expecting to see an event from various points of views instead of the perspective the historian tells the event in.
August 9th, 2011 Why is the understanding of culture necessary in order to understand history? - Most of what makes up history is the result of conflict between more than one group or individual. When a group of people or an individual have a different way of life from others, often times the sides disagree on numerous things. These differences in the cultures of the people can lead to conflict. For example, the North and South had a very different way of living and different way of seeing things. The North had a distinct opinion that slavery should be abolished, however the South had a very different point of view from the North saying that slavery was to continue because it was their way of living. Soon the issue over slavery led to the civil war because of the different cultures between the two regions. Now, the civil war is an essential event in US history. In order to understand what happened in the past, we have to understand the different cultures and especially the different perspectives of all the sides. That way, we can understand why the different sides did what they did, and why their different beliefs led to more consequences to form history.
October 25th, 2011
Absolutism to Revolution Linette
Character & Journal Entries Linette
October 4th, 2011
China: A Missed Opportunity for Global Dominance
Chinese Empire Reading Questions Linette
An Imperial Edict Restraining Officials Linette
Explorer's Journal Linette Kwon
Atlantic Slave Trade Linette
Tokugawa Reform Linette
September 29th, 2011
Islam Paragraph Linette Kwon
September 27th, 2011
McDougal, . Modern World History. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2010. Classzone. Web. 1 Jan. <http://www.classzone.com/cz/books/wh_modern05/secured/resources/applications/ebook/index.jsp>.
September 26th, 2011
September 25th, 2011
How did the Ottomans treat non-Muslims?
- Ottomans mistreated non-muslims by killing them. They raided the lands of where the non-muslim people lived. They didn’t approve of non-muslims whatsoever. They also made non-muslims pay taxes. They thought that Muslims themselves were much better than the non-muslims.
What were Suleyman's major accomplishments?
- Suleyman brought the Ottoman Empire to its greatest size and most impressive achievements. He conquered parts of Southeastern Europe and won control of the entire eastern Mediterranean Sea. He took North Africa as far west as Tripoli. He also ruled his empire with a highly structured government that gave people the right to follow any religion they desired.He revised the laws of the empire and built fine buildings.
Despite their brilliant rule, what critical mistake did Suleiman and Shah Abbas make?
- They made the critical mistake of killing off their most powerful and talented sons because they were afraid they would seize power from them. At the end, they had no choice but to give their power to someone who was not fully capable of managing the position and as a result the empire fell.
What evidence of cultural blending can you find in Akbar's rule?
- During Akbar’s rule, because he allowed all people to follow whatever religion they wanted and didn’t really care about their culture but more on their ability, two new languages were produced, Hindi blended the Persian and local languages. Urdu grew of a mixture of Arabic, Persian, and Hindi and is the official language of Pakistan today.
How did Akbar's successors contribute to the end of the Mughal Empire?
September 9th, 2011
What were the CAUSES of the Scientific Revolution? Which one do you think is MOST significant AND WHY?
Why might those in positions of authority at the time (Church and government) tend to reject new ideas?
Do you agree with Galileo's actions during his trial? Explain.
Make a list of the major figures of this revolution in thinking and what they did.
Explain the significance of these terms:
September 4th, 2011
How did the Renaissance contribute to the opening of the mind in Europe?
- The Renaissance was a time of rebirth, and the revival of art and learning. Before the Renaissance came along, Europe was greatly damaged by the Bubonic Plague and the population had greatly decreased. The Renaissance contributed to the opening minds of Europe due to its multitudes of new discoveries which were realizations of all the things they were missing out on. The Renaissance introduced new styles of art that many people first looked down on. For example, Michelangelo introduced a whole new concept of art to the people in Europe and he used the concept of nudity. This concept of art was greatly shunned by the people at first, however later on they realized that they should embrace the human body instead of look down on it. They were awaken by the forms of art they didn’t know about. The Renaissance also introduced new discoveries like Galileo’s discovery stating that we lived in a heliocentric universe instead of a geocentric universe. This contributed to the opening minds of Europe because they realized that they had been believing in the wrong theory for the whole time and that there were yet many things to discover. They were shaken by the fact that not all of their theories were accurate. In conclusion, art and new discoveries played big roles in the Renaissance to open the mind of Europe and show that discoveries were yet to be made in art and in other fields.
Edited by Peter Kim
September 3rd, 2011
August 31st, 2011
Why does Europe gain dominance?
- I think Europe gains dominance mostly because first of all the Renaissance started in Europe. I also think Europe gains dominance because of its devout people in religion. First off, church leaders and general church itself holds dominant power in social statuses and so if someone were to prove their theories or what they say, they would have the power to shut them up. The church power is so strong that they can make people think what they want the people to think. So whatever people want to say that is against what the church people say is no good. Most religious power is held in Europe because it was strongly dominant in that area. Also, the Renaissance or the time period of new things started in Italy which is in Europe and many essential people came from Europe for example like Columbus who bumped into the land of America. Because religion, essential people, and a lot of power and goods came from different places in Europe, I think Europe gains dominance around the world.
August 23rd, 2011
August 22nd, 2011
Linette Kwon's Family History Project
August 12th, 2011
August 10th, 2011
Vocabulary
- heretical- describes a person who believes in something different than orthodox religion
- faggot- a bundle of sticks tied together to represent disgrace in one’s wrongdoings
- Eucharist- Christian celebration where wine (jesus’ blood) and bread (jesus’ body) is served
- abstain- to restrain oneself from doing something
- penance- a punishment where one has to announce their wrongdoings
- beseeching- to urgently ask someone to to something
- source- a person, place, or object in which information can be gathered
1. Hogsflesh is being punished because he practiced heresy and at that time the orthodox church was very powerful and devout. Therefore he had to announce to the people that what he did was wrong and also he had to carry around a bundle of sticks (faggot) to indicate his wrongdoings. The historian’s main point of the article is that Hogsflesh was punished at that time just for having a different belief and that he got punished in numerous ways in order to avoid a severe consequence which was getting burnt in fire. However they were just listing facts from their sources without having some opinion.2. John Arnold defines the roles of a historian and not only recording the information in chronological order but they also have to fill in the missing information and also interpret what we can take out of such stories. That’s why they are often referred to as interpreters. I disagree with his assumptions because I really think that finding the facts are easy, however filling in the gaps is not. Facts are facts and that’s why they’re recorded however filling in the gaps may not always be the correct information. I think historians should have an opinion on the story rather than just say the facts.
3. It means that they’re being loyal to their sources and recording the information from their source as facts. They don’t make up any information on their own. This is important because historical references have to be true and not false because we want facts from the past to be accurate in order to learn what really happened in the past.
4. A single event can most definitely be interpreted in more than one way because it depends on the source of where the information is received. The information can be received from many different people and so the perspective on the same story would be all different therefore the story could change a little to favor one’s side. Anything could be interpreted in different ways. Even a simple accident such as a student not receiving such a good grade could have more than one perspective.
5. There was an incident where a woman was once very unreasonably malicious to me because of something her own child did. I really don’t think it’s possible to always be objective because in a story, there’s always one perspective of the side that treated with more contempt or unfairness. Therefore, sometimes a historian is bound to have an opinion about events. For example to every person that knew about that incident where the woman was being unfair to me, they felt pity for me because it was clear that I was more of the victim.
6. There are always sides to a certain event and so if a historian favors one side, the other side/sides may feel like the historian is being biased or unfair and that might even cause some sort of conflict. Subjective history can be beneficial though because we would be able to comprehend an event better by looking through the historian’s eyes (point of view) and with that we could get a deeper meaning out of the event. I remembered the event I stated earlier because it was just so unfair and degrading to me. The other person remembers that event because that person probably felt bad about what happened. This tells us that history is all about having more than one point of view on a single event.
7. Every historian is a storyteller because they list what happened in an event with an opinion (sometimes) in order to make the story appeal to more people. Historians should have limited versions of a story and not countlessly many because then the people who hear about the story would not know what to think about the story and would not have an opinion on an event that happened. We wouldn’t be able to trust them because having countlessly many versions of a story seems a little suspicious.
8. I always thought that history was completely accurate because it was published in textbooks and everything but now I know that history can sometimes be biased because the historians can have certain opinions or perspectives on a single event. I will approach history with a more open mind and be expecting to see an event from various points of views instead of the perspective the historian tells the event in.
August 9th, 2011
Why is the understanding of culture necessary in order to understand history?
- Most of what makes up history is the result of conflict between more than one group or individual. When a group of people or an individual have a different way of life from others, often times the sides disagree on numerous things. These differences in the cultures of the people can lead to conflict. For example, the North and South had a very different way of living and different way of seeing things. The North had a distinct opinion that slavery should be abolished, however the South had a very different point of view from the North saying that slavery was to continue because it was their way of living. Soon the issue over slavery led to the civil war because of the different cultures between the two regions. Now, the civil war is an essential event in US history. In order to understand what happened in the past, we have to understand the different cultures and especially the different perspectives of all the sides. That way, we can understand why the different sides did what they did, and why their different beliefs led to more consequences to form history.